"이 시점에서 우리는 정말 중요한 질문을 할 수 있다: 세계화와 그 자유민주주의적 자본주의와 근대주의적(포스트-모더니스트적) 원리에 대한 우리의 반대에 어떤 이데올로기가 쓰일 수 있을 것인가? 나는 모든 반자유주의적 이데올로기들(공산주의, 사회주의는 물론 파시즘)이 더이상 적절하지 않다고 생각한다. 그들은 자유주의적 자본주의와 싸우려 했으나 패배했다. 부분적으로는 끝에 가서 이기는 것은 본디 악이기 때문이고, 또 부분적으로는 그들 내부의 모순과 한계 때문이다.
이제 우리는 우리를 둘러싼 (정치적) 세계를 올바르게 해석하고 그것을 있는 그대로 다룰 수 있도록 만반의 준비를 갖췄다. 제4의 정치 이론(Forth Political Theory, 이하 4PT)이 무엇인지 이해하는 가장 쉬운 방법은 다음 일련의 그림들에 주의 깊게 집중하는 것이다.
[유라시아 견문] 신유라시아주의 : 페레스트로이카 2.0 <下>
다극성에 대한 모니터링은 그 어느 때보다 화제가 되고 있습니다. 세계의 주요 사건들이 해석되어야 하는 것은 다극성의 상승과 단극성의 쇠퇴라는 프리즘을 통해서입니다.
A. 두긴은 ‘러시아 철학의 가능성’을 하이데거의 ‘시작’ 개념에서 영감을 받는다. 두긴에게는 ‘러시아’가 그의 사고의 지평이자 중심이다. 이런 이유 때문에 두긴의 철학은 자칫 문화상대주의적·민족지학적인 것으로 폄하될 수도 있다. 하지만 그는 기본적으로 글로벌 비전하에서 지역-러시아를 철학적으로 탐구한 것이기 때문에 그의 철학은 ‘지역적인’ 것이 아니라 오히려 지역적이며 세계적인, 즉 ‘지역세계화적인’ 것이라 할 수 있다.
Φέρνω το παρόν έργο στην προσοχή του κοινού όχι χωρίς κάποια ανησυχία. Οι ιδέες που εκφράζονται σε αυτό πήραν μορφή στο μυαλό μου πριν από δέκα και πλέον χρόνια. Από τότε τις έχω συζητήσει συχνά με διάφορους ανθρώπους, επιθυμώντας είτε να επαληθεύσω τις δικές μου απόψεις είτε να πείσω άλλους. Πολλές από αυτές τις συζητήσεις και αντιπαραθέσεις ήταν αρκετά χρήσιμες για μένα, διότι με ανάγκασαν να επανεξετάσω τις ιδέες και τα επιχειρήματά μου με μεγαλύτερη λεπτομέρεια και να τους δώσω πρόσθετο βάθος. Όμως οι βασικές μου θέσεις παρέμειναν αμετάβλητες.
Một thế giới đa cực dựa trên sự công nhận về sự bình đẳng của các nền văn minh và văn hóa, mỗi nền văn minh tạo nên vũ trụ riêng của mình.
국제 러시아 운동 회의가 끝난 후 철학자 알렉산더 두긴은 미국과 유럽이 다른 세계와의 관계 구축에 있어 정확히 무엇을 잘못하고 있는지에 대해 이야기했습니다.
SVOの全期間を通じて、ワグネルPMCとエフゲニー・プリゴジンは、ロシア社会と世界社会の注目の的であることに自信を持っていました。ロシア人にとって、彼は勝利、決意、ヒロイズム、勇気、回復力の主要なシンボルとなっている。敵にとっては、憎しみと同時に恐怖と恐れの源である。プリゴジンは、ロシア軍で最も戦闘力が高く、勝利と無敗を誇る部隊を率いるだけでなく、最後まで戦争の要素に完全かつ不可逆的に没入した戦争体験者の心の中にある感情、思考、要求、希望に出口を提供することが重要である。
ウクライナ人はこの30年間、ロシア人やロシア的なものを嫌うよう、大規模かつ積極的に教えられてきた。全世代がロシア人嫌いで育ってきたのです。
Noot van de vertaler: Aleksandr Doegin analyseert hier de situatie in Turkije vanuit Russisch oogpunt en binnen het huidige kader van de oorlog tussen Rusland en Oekraïne (of liever tussen Rusland en de NAVO) in de Zwarte Zee, die een inzet is van de oude Russisch-Ottomaanse rivaliteit. De huidige situatie impliceert een aanzienlijke verandering van aanpak. Voor Europa (of voor het idee van het Gemeenschappelijk Huis) gaat de noodzaak om de argumenten van Erdogan te aanvaarden, die de Amerikaanse inmenging wenst te beperken, hand in hand met een afwijzing van Erdogans beleid om de Turkse diaspora te manipuleren tegen de Europese samenlevingen, een manipulatie die ook zou plaatsvinden als het beruchte ideologische kenmerk van de West-Europese regimes niet het Wokisme zou zijn.
2022年12月，新西伯利亞國家音樂廳舉辦了第一屆「WRNS西伯利亞論壇」，新西伯利亞地區政府首腦和俄羅斯東正教會新西伯利亞區最高負責人都參加了這場會議。現代俄羅斯最著名的哲學家亞歷山大·杜金教授 (Alexander Dugin)在此次活動中擔任演講者。來自今日領袖報《Today correspondent》的代表亞歷山大·佐諾夫 (Alexander Zonov) 與他進行了採訪交談。
Rusland heeft zijn paradigma veranderd van realisme naar de theorie van een multipolaire wereld, heeft het liberalisme in al zijn vormen rechtstreeks verworpen en heeft de moderne westerse beschaving rechtstreeks uitgedaagd, door haar openlijk het recht te ontzeggen om universeel te zijn.
In our time it is becoming increasingly clear that man himself, his very existence, is in question, and it is becoming increasingly clear that we are living in a critical, extremely critical moment in history, and it is possible (and even probable) that we are living in the end times.
Epidemics and wars are decimating millions of lives, in the SMO, the world has been brought to the brink of a nuclear war that, once started, could end humanity's existence.
The most thoughtful observers of the Ukrainian front note the peculiar nature of this war: the chaos factor has increased enormously. This applies to all sides of the Special Military Operation, both to the actions and strategies of the enemy and our command, as well as to the dramatically increased role of technology (all kinds of drones and UAVs), and the intensive online information support, where it is almost impossible to distinguish the fictitious from the real. This is a war of chaos. It is time to revisit this fundamental concept.
"서구는 패권(hegemony)장악이라는 불가능한 꿈에 매달리고 있다"고 러시아 철학자는 말했다.
Un trait caractéristique de la philosophie russe, selon certains historiens de la philosophie russe, est l'ontologisme de la pensée. La position de l'ontologisme en philosophie, contrairement à la position opposée du gnoséologisme, implique la considération primordiale non pas du processus de la pensée, mais de l'objet de la compréhension. Étant du côté de l'ontologique, nous cherchons avant tout à identifier et à répondre à la question : "QUOI est, QUOI est l'objet de notre connaissance, QUOI est le centre de notre intuition intellectuelle".
Bu Ukrayna ile bir savaş değil. Bu, bütünsel bir gezegen fenomeni olarak küreselleşmeyle bir yüzleşmedir. Jeopolitik ve ideolojik olmak üzere her düzeyde bir yüzleşmedir.
Rus milliyetçi entelektüellerin yeni internet sitesi zavtra.ru'daki son yazısında Aleksandr Dugin, Rusya'nın Ukrayna üzerindeki niyetlerini tüm çıplaklığıyla açıkladı. Dugin'i göre artık Ukrayna Doğu Slav Birliği'nden ayrılamayacak.... Batının B planı terörizm... Afganistan'dan ABD'nin ayrılması Taliban'ı güçlendirip bize güneyden saldırtmak için!..
Para comprender la transformación del orden mundial que está aconteciendo ante nuestros ojos, sobre todo el proceso de cambio de un modelo unipolar (globalista) a uno multipolar, es necesario recurrir a diversas ideas y conceptos que permiten realizar una explicación coherente de la misma. He propuesto mi propia visión del asunto en libros como Teoría del mundo multipolar y La Geopolítica del mundo multipolar, pero estas son solo aproximaciones a un tema bastante complicado. En este artículo quiero desarrollar tres conceptos que pueden ayudarnos a comprender mucho mejor el proceso de transición que está teniendo lugar en las Relaciones Internacionales. Creo que estos conceptos explican las tendencias, conflictos y problemas que se producen actualmente, como, por ejemplo, los conflictos en Ucrania, Taiwán y otras partes del mundo. Solo comprenderemos lo que está sucediendo ahora si entendemos las razones detrás de esta transición, lo cual requiere de una contraparte conceptual. Los tres conceptos que vamos a abordar hacen parte de una explicación de este asunto.
We come to a third concept, crucial for understanding the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world and the place of the BRICS countries in this process. We are talking about the concept of the civilisation-state. This idea has been formulated by Chinese scholars (in particular by Professor Zhang Weiwei) and most often the concept of the civilisation-state is applied to modern China and then by analogy to Russia, India, etc. In the Russian context, a similar theory was put forward by the Eurasians, who proposed the concept of the Peace-State. Actually, in that trend, Russia was understood as a civilisation, not just one of the countries, hence the main Eurasian concept - Russia-Eurasia.
Let us now turn to a different theory: the 'world-system analysis' constructed by Immanuel Wallerstein. Wallerstein, an exponent of the Marxist school of International Relations (especially in its Trotskyist interpretation), on the basis of the doctrine of "the long run" (F. Braudel) and the Latin American theorists of structural economics (R. Prebisch, S. Furtado), developed a model of world zoning according to the level of development of capitalism. This view represents a development of Vladimir Lenin's ideas on imperialism as the highest stage of development of capitalism, according to which the capitalist system naturally gravitates towards globalisation and the spread of its influence over all humanity. Colonial wars between the developed powers are only the initial stage. Capitalism is gradually realising the unity of its supranational goals and forming the core of world government. This is fully consistent with liberal International Relations theory, where the phenomenon of 'imperialism', critically understood by Marxists, is described in apologetic terms as the goal of a 'global society', the One World.
The “New Right” is an ensemble of intellectual movements that appeared in 1968 as a reaction to ideological crisis and the strengthening of liberal hegemony in Europe. By 1968, the classical “rightwing” movements were riddled with liberal ideological motives, such as the adoption of capitalism, pro-American sentiments, and statism. In turn, the “left-wing” agenda, the core of which was constituted by opposition to capitalism [1], was also affected by liberal influences. Egalitarianism, individualism, the negation of differences between cultures, and universalism were rendering “left-wing” movements allies and partners of the liberal doctrine.